[Note: This material is copyright
by the Press-Citizen, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair
use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require
the prior approval of the Iowa
City Press-Citizen.]

The voters' choice is simple.
We're not voting for or against a municipal utility. Legally, voters don't
have that power. That's fortunate. How many of us know, really know, enough
to document why it is, or is not, in our best interests?

The election isn't binding
legally or politically. But it will be politically influential. If a majority
vote "no," we will be urging the City Council to stop exploring the pros
and cons of municipal electricity.

How dumb is that? Why would
anyone want to discourage our City Council from considering options for
community improvement? Isn't that precisely why we elected them?

So a "yes" vote is a thoughtful
voter's only option. That part's easy.

It's more complicated for
the lawyers. Fortunately, highly skilled lawyers for Citizens for Public
Power, the City of Iowa City and MidAmerican think all is well. So post-election
litigation is unlikely.

But here's a summary of my
casual reading of a couple statutes.(For details, see www.nicholasjohnson.org.)
[Note for online version: The direct link is to Nicholas Johnson, "The
Significance of Iowa City's "Public Power" Vote; Where Are the Relevant
Statutory Provisions and What Do They Say?" August 1, 2005 (linked from
site August 29, 2005), at http://nicholasjohnson.org/politics/PubPower/njpplegl.html.]

The Iowa Legislature publishes
laws in volumes called the Code of Iowa. That's where Iowa's cities get
their legal powers. One Code chapter deals with "City Utilities." In brief,
it provides a five-step process for their creation.

1. A city council
may make a "proposal to establish a city utility."

2. It may put that proposal
on a ballot. (However, it can't proceed unless it does.)

3. The voters vote yes or
no.

4. If a majority approves,
the council then "may" proceed. (Or do nothing. There are not even requirements
for studies or business plans.)

5. Even if a council does
go ahead, its plan isn't effective until approved by the Iowa Utilities
Board. (Following which the council could still do nothing.)

Our Nov. 8 ballot asks whether
our city council "should be authorized to establish a city utility." There's
nothing in the law about voters "authorizing" their city councils to make
utility proposals. The Iowa Code gives city councils all the proposal authorization
they need.

Our City Council can still
propose a municipal utility if the ballot proposition is rejected. It can
refuse to go ahead even if it passes.

One interpretation of the
law is that all proposals for city utilities must come from city councils.
After our Nov. 8 vote, and a subsequent proposal from our City Council,
we voters would have to vote, this time on that council proposal.

The statutory language is
sufficiently ambiguous that an argument could be made that a city's voters
can act on their own. Over their council's objection they could propose
"to establish a city utility," petition to put their proposal on the ballot,
and then vote to approve it.

Even if that questionable
interpretation is valid, presumably the proposition would need to specify,
as the statute says, a "proposal to establish" -- not a "proposal to authorize
a city council to establish." If our language is adequate to short circuit
the council-proposal-plus-voter-ratification process, it still can't force
our city council to create a utility.

The second ballot proposition
raises more issues. The law authorizes the creation of a city's utility
board (what proponents call a "board of trustees"). Public power proponents
suggest the board will develop a business plan. But the law empowers such
boards to "administer" and "operate" city utilities, not study them.

Once a proposal for a city
utility receives "the approval of the voters," the city council "may" proceed.
But once the voters approve a proposal for a utility board the mayor "shall"
appoint its members.

We don't need a utility board
to administer a non-existent utility. Moreover, what happens if one proposition
passes and the other doesn't? Suppose a majority vote "no" on the utility
but "yes" on the "board of trustees." After all, the second proposition
says it's "required by law."

What if a majority vote "yes"
for the municipal utility but "no" on the board? The law says we must wait
four years, with a utility and no board, before we can vote again.

Fortunately, we voters don't
have to worry about this "murky" legal stuff. We don't have to know a kilowatt
from a kilobyte, a state code from a city charter. We can't vote for or
against public power anyway. Just "yes" to continue the council's freedom
to explore our best interests, or "no" to tie its hands.

That's a simple enough choice.
Even I can vote "yes" with confidence._______________Nicholas Johnson, a former
FCC commissioner and school board member, teaches at the UI College of
Law and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org. Reach him at njohnson [at] inav.net.